Charita Goshay: Drive a hard bargain with automakers

Should we loan American automakers money to keep their industry afloat, or should we allow Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest” to take its course?

Charita Goshay

We didn’t know it at the time, but the closing of Ewing Chevrolet in Canton, Ohio, after 93 years was a canary in a mine shaft.

Should we loan American automakers money to keep their industry afloat, or should we allow Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest” to take its course?

For years, American carmakers have claimed they had to make gas-guzzlers to meet customer demand. But mostly, we want what advertisers tell us we should want.

For decades, Detroit beat back increased emission and fuel-efficiency standards, spending as much as $10 million on lobbyists. The only green they cared about was yours.

Now, the Hummers have come home to roost.

Undertow

It’s easy to forget that everything’s connected. One reason Detroit is in trouble is because it can’t borrow money thanks to the implosion of the banking industry. And if Detroit capsizes, millions will drown in the undertow, including people you know.

But where do we stop? It may be time to divert the $25 billion congressional loan originally set aside for fuel-efficiency programs, as President George W. Bush already has suggested.

But it isn’t solely about the money; it’s also about the product. For years, Detroit ceded ground by cranking out junk such as the Chevrolet Vega, a car that should have come with a free headstone.

Today’s American cars are comparable to any other, but they’ve lost generations of consumers.

Bonus onus

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., harrumphed last week that any money forked over to Detroit should not be burned on bonuses for people making more than $200,000 a year.

Is he kidding? Why are bonuses even part of the discussion? If your company is hanging upside down, should you really be expecting a bonus? Shouldn’t you just be happy if your paycheck doesn’t bounce?

People love to blame overpaid, “union-goon” assembly-line workers for Detroit’s troubles, but laborers don’t design vehicles people aren’t buying, or marketing strategies based on the assumption of eternally cheap oil.

However much a laborer makes, a Fortune 500 CEO makes about 400 times more. And who has proved to be the better bargain, the people installing the steering wheels, or those white-shirts who drove their companies into the ditch?

Jet-setters

If any money is given to Detroit, one of the conditions should be to fire the board members and top-tier executives who brought us to this place.

Better the sacrifice of a few than the demise of all.

Last week, the Big Three CEOs showed just how much they don’t get it: They each blew into Washington on private jets ‹ to ask for public money.

Wouldn’t taking a commercial flight, or even driving -- hello -- one of your own cars, have made for a better case?